some like journalists for politico all nate is doing is averaging polls right? that's the secret sauce? well, yeah, the fact that you can't comprehend that very basic thing. that says more about you than about me. >> cenk: i love it, put them back in the ring. here comes a crushing blow! what's the matter with you? your job is politics, and you can't read a single poll. i love it. "the young turks," see you tomorrow. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." who is afraid of the big bad so-called fiscal cliff? maybe it should be termed the nice gradual fiscal slope. we've certainly heard a lot of ceos and other financial cassandras in recent weeks prove

size doom if it a deal isn't cut by year's owned. but washington, both side have dug in their heels, and the answer may be that suddenly the sliding down the fiscal slope does not seem that bad. maybe that's why the republicans leaders like speaker of the house john boehner were able to put off making a counter proposal to the president's offer until today. crossing the red line on the talks by rejecting the demind that the republicans accept a hike in the marginal tax rate for those with income over a quarter million dollars a year. my view? obviously i agree with the white house on the substance and as i have said before, their hand gets stronger over time. but sometimes a new idea can change the dynamic. here is an idea that has been around for a long time, supported by james tobin way back and pushed by ralph nadar in a "washington post" op-ed this weekend. impose a tax on financial

transactions. it will give us up to $100 billion a year, fail on a sector that has generateed enormous unwarranted profits for very few but benefited from huge bailouts the regulatory help but by and large escaped responsibility for their role in the financial cataclysm we're still struggling with. with me, dan gross author of "better, strong, faster." and brian beutler and eric bates. what's your take on this? how severe will the harm be to the economy if we do not have a deal by december 31st. >> the macroeconomic harm is not going to be that great.

our economy is adaptable adjustable. these things take place over the course of a year. for some people it is a cliff. the payroll tax cut will expire. if you're a working person, you're losing $40 to $50 a week immediately in your first paycheck. the unemployment benefits will expire. if you're dependent on that, your income will fall off the cliff. if you're someone who listens on dividends and financial gains, the fact that tax on those will rise will not put a crimp in your lifestyle and you may not be taking any capital gains until june, july, august, september. those who are most vulnerable are those on the lower income ladder and who are benefiting from the benefits that will expire, they will feel like they're going over a cliff. >> eliot: brian, let me turn to

you, politically am i not correct? the pieces of the tax impact that dan was just talking about that would have the greatest impact are the pieces that are the least likely to be extended under any deal. the payroll tax there seemed to be a consensus that there would not be an extension of the payroll tax cut because that is so necessary to funding social security. that would have the greatest impact on lower middle income folks but no one was talking about extended that piece. >> we've heard nothing about it until the white house put out the plan last week and it talks about extending or replacing it with the tax credit that was in the stimulus bill. but the republicans have sort of pretended that that was not even part of the offer and they put out sort of counter officer offer and was silent on the payroll tax and unemployment. of all the places that the white house and congressional republicans are far apart that's one of the key issues

where republicans are just not even entertaining it. >> eliot: if i under this poly, dan is exactly right, that would have the greatest impact on lower and middle income folks. even if you extend the marginal rate reduction in the tax reduction, if the payroll tax is likely to go up, the most impact is something we would be stuck with any way. >> that's right. politically can we go over the cliff and survive in a way that we could reach a deal and could we reach a better deal if we go over the cliff, which has been discussion from obama's point of view maybe its easier for them to do that, and make a few deals that looks like you're cutting taxes rather than supporting revenue hikes. >> eliot: we've all been watching the kabuki dance playing out here, and the politics of this that obviously john boehner needs to go to the

map and say we will not let marginal rates increase. the president needs to take the opposite perspective but we know the deal is easier to construct as we get closer to december 31st, and they can make the tax changes effective january 31st. and when everything becomes a tax cut rather than maintaining some sort of increase. >> eliot: absolutely. but no one wants to be seen recklessly driving it over the cliff, especially if you see impacts in the economy which i think are less likely, but also if you see impacts in the markets. one of alan greenspan's innovations i would say is that he saw the stock market and the economy as one and the same. if you saw it going down, you had to fix it. what we've seen over the years when there are big problems in washington and unpredicted problems then the stock market

crashes, that gets people to act act. now when the s & p goes down several hundreds hundred points, okay, we have to do something. i think there is a sense, maybe fear among the democrats and maybe hope of the republicans that the stock market will start tanking, and drive them to deal with it sooner or later. i don't see it happening but it's quite possible that it might. if the market is down, to blame it on something, some fear of the cliff, but that's something that we have to keep in mind here. people using the stock market and some people may be hoping that it will go down in response to the reaction of the fiscal cliff. >> eliot: you're saying something hugely important. alan greenspan did try to create the impression that the market and the economy was one and the same. that was a huge mistake the financialization of our economy. that's what led to the cataclysm

in 2008. perhaps more important, the point you made, you're right there are a lot of people who are trying to create the fear, the cassandras that i referred to the top of the show who are behind that argument who say now you must do what we want. they want corporate tax cut. am i right? they're sliding something in there that is not directly related to the issue that we're supposed to be directing. >> everyone is doing that. doing the negotiation with the union or any other negotiation you start off with what speaker boehner is calling your la la land proposal. you start off with what you want, and then you work from there. both sides have staked out their dream position, and that's not where we're going to wind up, but that's where you starter and it's kabuki theater, as you said. >> eliot: the components that may not be a cliff or a slope the see questions trace that kicks in, that will have a slow

impact. it's not like the defense department will say stop building tomorrow. these are things in the pipeline, and these things continue for a long time before there is an impact. >> the administration can take steps to further mitigate what the see questions trace would inflict sequestration would inflict on the economy. there are things that they can do to limb the damage. the reason why there is such a big question mark hanging over there would be a deal or not the administration has run a hard line of late about tax rates needing to go up, and the decision-making process in the republican party is sort of become dysfunctional and irrational and even though they could potentially minimize the

damage by voting to extend all the middle income tax cuts, they can't bring themselves to do it until after all the tax cuts expire. then obama, you know, is not necessarily bound by just that demand. he could come and ask to free up more revenue. as dan was saying, i think they hope that something in the market will make the democrats move quickly but if they don't that just suggests that they don't have it within themselves as a party to vote affirmatively do so something. >> eliot: there is one other component that could create fear and tank the market, and that's the debt ceiling. that's the place where john boehner is saying there is an extra price for that. i'm going to extort an extra piece of this if you want me to raise the debt ceiling and don't fall into that bear trap once against we hope. that's something that we'll talk about. we'll take a break and my guests will stay with me. we'll talk about the meet and

potatoes of it and the debt sealing. we'll be right back. mints called mints? answer in a moment. fruit just got cooler. fruit on one side, cool on the other. ice breakers duo. a fruity, cool way to break the ice. brought to you by ice breakers mints. break the ice. [ male announcer ] born from the elements. ♪ ♪ destined to take them over. the uconnect command center with sirius xm satellite radio in the new 2013 ram 1500.

engineered to move heaven and earth. guts. glory. ram.

i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> eliot: i'm joined once again by dan gross of the new weeks and daily beast and brian

beutler and eric bates. this was the damage that john boehner hung over the white house last year. the white house said we're going to put this all in one and boehner said you have to pay me a special price. it would be insane not to come to a resolution on this issue once and for all. >> it's really the only card that he hold. obama has the advantage of letting--going over the cliff and letting it all expire so he starts to get the revenue that he wants. what does boehner have to negotiate? j. >> cenk: this is dr. strangelove territory. this is peter sellers pushing the button. you do this, and you destroy yourself. it's an insane negotiating ploy. it's hard to think that he could

push that button. he used it last year and there was a consensus that politically that republicans lost face and lost public support and they were playing with fire. am i misreading this? >> no, because i think part of it, again, we're talking about the markets. it strikes fear in the markets. they say, president obama you better do something because the stock markets and the bond markets are reacting negatively to all these issues about the debt ceiling. but we saw what happened after august of 2011 we got downgraded. our debt was downgraded but the interest rates that we pay on our debt has fallen. the stock market has continued to rise. i think if we had that drama again, the treasury department has options. there is a constitutional option. no one believes that the u.s. government is going to default on its debt and stop paying interest on its bond. even if it did things are so bad throughout thest the rest of the

world it would not cause people to dump our treasury securities. i don't think there is that much continuing that could be done even if we go down that road again. >> eliot: they have no place else to put their money. are they going to buy greek debt and declare a default? john boehner used that card. it failed, he got egg on his face and we were downgraded. all the negative things that people said would happen didn't happen and in fact just the opposite. but my advise advice would be to put your seat belt and this this is one of these budgie jump moments you just ride it: brian let me come back to you. the difference where the white house is and john boehner is not that great in the context of a ten-year time frame. what are we fighting over? >> we're fighting over where to take that money from and when to

do it. everything specific comes up out of medicare and social security eligible seniors. the white house takes that money from providers and there is a question of how quickly or what cases cuts trickle down to beneficiaries, but they clearly don't impact seniors as directly as what republicans want to do. the white house has been adamant about raising tax rates and republicans aren't there yet. and say they're just not going to get there. they're never going to be in a position where they will take a vote that will result in anybody's income rates going up. >> eliot: brian, the fundamental differences are the rates, and no rates and the republicans saying revenues without specifying, eventually they would have to. they're talking about the bucket

approach, but eric, at the end of the day the differences here are sort of lost in the dust when they can all stand up and say we've raised revenue, which is a number that the president is happy with. we've cut medicare and medicaid spending but we'll do it in a way that keeps people whole. there is a road to compromise here. >> there is a road, but the question is do they want to get on the road and drive in that direction. we're talking about how much of an austerity plan this country is going to be put there. that's really the thing dividing them, as brian said, where are these cuts going to fall? where are the tax benefits going to fall? that's the issue that they're struggling over. >> eliot: the largest pen line numbers in understand most normal folks don't pay attention the way we might to the granular differences, and dan, the headline is if they agree on $1.2 trillion in revenue, and they do it one way or another not everybody is going to get upset. what am i missing here? >> it's like the arguments some

people, if you're going to the city and someone said, let's take the triboro bridge, and someone else says we have to take the tunnel. there is an intense argument. the route is what matters here. you have to look at it in historical terms. >> eliot: can i interrupt. >> midtown tunnel. nothing happens in the midtown tunnel. >> eliot: stay out of the midtown tunnel. >> the greatest legislative achievements, soldier social achievements over the last 80 years, and for the republicans the greatest achievements have been the bush tax cuts. each one wants to ask the other to part with that. obama is really insisting we're going to take this--we're going to do this austerity, but we're going to do it by making you give up the thing that you cherish most, the tax cuts for the wealthy. the republicans are saying they

want to raise the medicare retirement age. they want to cut the formula for paying social security benefits. they want medicare. they're basically we want to take the greatest historic achievement of lyndon johnson fdr, we want to you sign off on changing them fundamentally. it's not just a question about numbers. the method, the route by which they get there makes all the difference. this is a lot of what they're fighting about. >> eliot: i think this is exactly right. the numbers do mask philosophical differences, and the they agree upon but the way you agree on those numerical objectives when we come back, the fiscal cliff and other idea that have not been put on the table.

but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks or jumping into the market he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense from td ameritrade.

>> eliot: i'm back with dan gross of "newsweek" and the daily beast. brian beutler and eric bates. i want to start out with the financial trend financial packs

that i mentioned earlier in the show. dan, would that be a bad idea? a good idea? something that we should think about and hold in reserve for another day. >> i actually think it's a good idea. the economists say if you want something less of something tax it more. if we want less speculation and less out of control training by these crazy machines that are doing hundreds of thousands of trades a day to capture a fraction of a penny in economic gains, taxes it would discourage those and raise a fair amount of money in a fairly painless way in trading. >> eliot: would this be an useful compromise point? you want the capital markets to be liquid. you want to allocate capital efficiently among businesses and he cansectors. all of that used to happen before the hedge fund that were driven by computers. you could butt a transaction tax

it on, do what financial markets are supposed to do and raise money. why wouldn't this be politically good for both parties. >> because wall street still owns the capital. >> eliot: there you go. >> an idea that has gotten some attention from experts and even from some legislators but that's not really being discussed between principles here is a carbon tax. something that obama used to put value on was averred averting climate change it just doesn't the political constituency strong enough in the capitol, even though we have this cliff or slope or whatever you want to call it. there is a way around it. >> eliot: you're right the tax in terms of global warming is the answer that economists are telling us we need to move to. eric, the financial transaction tax is an idea whose time may have come.

>> it's a no-brainer. they've been calling for it since the frank dodd days. that's when it would have made sense. it would have paid for oversight and solved some of the problems. but as everyone has pointed out politically whether you can get there or not is a whole other question. on the other hand, particularly since the republicans outraised obama 5-1 on wall street which is a real reverse since 2008. the markets are so upset with the minimal oversight that the administration has put on them that they've swung to the g.o.p. camp this time, and they're not going to buckle on that. >> eliot: brian, let me come back to a political-type question. defense cuts, another area where the democrats are saying we have the opportunity sequestration imposes more significant cuts in the military. many think that's a good thing to do. barney frank every chance you give him he'll talk loudly why it's the correct thing to do.

is there a chance that the republicans will give him that one? >> it depends on what happens between now and the first of the year. if you go over the cliff and all the tax cuts expire and sequestration takes affect, that gives the president the ability to reorganize the defense budget in a way that tracks what he wants to do with the military spending, which is to slow the growth or even to freeze the growth in real terms. if they cut a deal beforehand and then push off the sequester then i think it throws it back in congress' court and they'll keep doing what they want to do with defense spending, as you know and everybody knows house republicans want a lot of defense spending. so they're going to try to spend a lot of money there. >> eliot: indeed, they do, a lot of jobs and loft republican districts depend upon it. it's understandable. dan, equalizing the tax rate for capital gains why didn't the white house make a push on that

one and say okay, you don't want to raise marginal rates across the board, boom we'll raise it. now take your medicine. >> that seems to be the offering. i don't think anybody is saying let's keep the capital gains tax where it is, which is 15% for long-term gains, and the high level for shorter terms. i think they're talking about letting the long-term rate go up to maybe 20, 25%, that's something they'll negotiate. but i agree with you. what we introduced in 2011 and 2001 and and 2003 were all these wrinkles, if you hold it for 11 months you pay one tax. if you hold it for 13 months, you pay another. if you get your income from a paycheck, you pay another rate. if you get it from a dividend, it's another rate. and inheriting is still another rate. all these people who like the rates where they are also call

for getting rid of the complexity. they say if you'll get rid of the complexity, it will ignite economic growth. one way to do that is to stop treating all these different forms of income in massively different ways because it-- >> eliot: you don't get it. i want simplicity for me, and complexity for you. your loophole is my subsidy. eric, very quickly are we going to be back here january 5th having the same conversation? >> i don't think we'll have the same conversation, but we'll be back january 5th talking about this. even if they get a deal there will be so strands left unfinished that tieing them up will take time to finish. >> eliot: dan gross, brian beutler and eric bates, thank you for joining us tonight. coming up next, the middle east, the starting with the powder keg

in syria and what the u.s. should do about it.

>> eliot: for over 20 months

syria has been torn asundayer by a civil war that has left close to 50,000 dead and forced other 400,000 to flee the country. as has been observed, syria will explode out, not in. as the turmoil and flood of refugees have created mayhem in turkey, jordan and other surrounding nations. now with fears that president syria's president basher al-assad will use chemical weapons our rhetoric has been definitive, saying use would cross red line and spark immediate response. now most now agree as i do, that we have to do much more. joining me now is james jeffrey former u.s. ambassador to iraq, turkey and albania who previously served on the national security council as assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser and joe cirincione president of

plowshares fund and author of " "bomb scare." thank you for joining me tonight tonight. >> our pleasure. >> how do you assess the changing dynamic in syria where the forces seem to be gaining an upper hand and assad is playing defense. >> you're right on target. what we've seen in the last few days, especially around the north, rebel forces taking over entire regimental and larger headquarters and military garrisons with much of the equipment intact. they now have heavier weapons. we've also seen repeated shootdowns by we believe missiles of syrian aircraft and helicopters. that one side that was up until now had an advantage. meanwhile, n.a.t.o. may be as early as tuesday deploying patriot missiles in defensive

mode to turkey but that's also a sign of escalation. as you said a moment ago, it's the indications and rumors and some signs of actual action on the ground that assad may be getting ready for an act of desperation which is using chemical weapons. >> joe, tell us what we know about this stock pile, where they might be and how is it possible for us to prevent them from using them, and is it fair to assume as the ambassador just said, that would be an act of desperation, a sign on his part, of genuine weakness? >> the syrian chemical weapon program has been around for 40 years. it really picked up steam in the 60s, and recently as the mid 90s. we had evidence that russian agents were helping assad secure chemical precursors. we know he has mustard agents, and seron and possibly vx, a

more toxic and per citizen tent agent. he has scud missiles, and drop munitions and these are very deadly agents. a few drops on your skin will kill you. we've seen activity at some of the known chemical chemical weapons sites. does not seem is he for securing weapons withweapons but. that's why we heard the president say as directly as he can, the world is watching. if you use these weapons, there will be consequences. >> cenk: let's take that statement which we've heard over and over again ambassador, you've been perhaps the one oh

to deliver messages to leader over the red line. would it require military action on our part to prevent the use of chemical weapons? >> well, first of all it would be difficult to go after them individually. 20 years ago when we were playing whacka mole, it's difficult to track them down because they're indistinguishable from conventional weapons. we should be telling assad that this would be a game changer. we would go after the commanding control, that we can target. we know where the headquarters are. we have good intelligence where their unit commanders are and we can shut down much of their military forces very quickly. we can't go after individual chemical weapons with the assurance that we'll take them all out. that's impossible.

>> eliot: if i understand you properly, we would decapitate the military of the assyrian forces. we would not hesitate before we believe you would use these weapons in had any scale, we would take out your commanding control structure. >> i think that's exactly right even if we knew where all the weapons were, airstrikes alone would not knock them out. it may deliver them, and precipitate and spread the point around thepoison around the area. you're deterring assad from using it. we've stayed out of this conflict so far. you do this, you cross this line we're coming in and going after you. >> eliot: not thinking backward which is useless at this point. but we're at this point with the need to deliver this message, a statement that we have not been sufficientlysuccessful and perhaps we should have done this

differently. >> i don't think so. we've seen the problems and we've discussed this on your show where you try to supply arms forces some end up in al-qaida-like groups. you don't want that. there has been question about the unity of the rebel forces. they appear to get more organized now. they're on the verge of recognizing this group perhaps as soon as next week. it's been very hard to find a way to intervene successfully here. i give the administration credit for its persistence and patience in trying to find a diplomatic solution. >> eliot: this has been threading a very fine needle. ambassador there is a lot of precipitate, articles saying we're about to or on the cusp of recognizing the forces, what would we be able to do to bolster them against assad.

>> take action we should have taken months ago. roll the dice and start to equip some of these people with arms so we can have a say in how this thing will shape. i wouldn't go so far as saying this is an indictment. this is difficult stuff, and the administration has many good reasons to be cautious. but now we're in an en pass and your viewers have to know we've put a line down in the sand and we have to be ready to use military force if he does not back down. >> we do disagree a bit on that, ambassador, but let me ask you a question. it's not at all clear that we're at an end point. the tide has turned in the rebel as fair, but assad remains heavily armed. could assad hang on for a few more months? >> it's very hard to say having said multiple insurgencies usually on the receiving end from vietnam to the middle east. it's hard to say--its easier to say when you have momentum. right now the resistence has

momentum. how soon can that lead to the fall of sigh began saigon and that kind of thing. we're heading that way. the danger to avoid that, not only assad, but his adviser from the iranian force i've been on the receiving end of his actions in iraq, he's willing and capable of doing anything to preserve that regime. >> one last thing, even after the regime falls chemical weapons are not over. what you're afraid of is some of these extremist forces getting their hand on them, that will be a very difficult challenge for the united states. >> eliot: what leverage would we have after assumeing that assad falls, not only hope but we predict in the future, will we have the ability to deal with the insurgent forces.

james jeffrey and joe cirincione thank you for joining me tonight. >> thank you eliot and you live way up here. brian, your cousin, he's a little bit older than you, he lives here, in chicago. and your aunt lisa lives here, in baltimore. uncle earnie? waaay out in hawaii. but don't you worry, we will always be together for christmas. [ male announcer ] being together is the best part of the holidays and cheerios is happy to be part of the family. you just ate dallas!

[ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees

like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. cu our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> eliot: welcome back to "viewpoint." let's turn our attention to the constitutional crisis in egypt. join me as eric traeger fellow at the washington institute, and mark ginsburg former ambassador to morocco, thank you for joining me. eric, let me begin with you for a second. you've written a very good critique analysis of the draft constitution that has resulted from a lot of screaming and shouting over in egypt. tell us what are the good, the bad and the ugly that you see in this draft? >> eliot: well, thanks for having me. some of the good elements

include the fact that there are good non-discrimination clauses and it can be broken down in two parts. it provides a foothold for islamists to dominate the political future. it will give the ability to enforce religious ethics, and premises the legal system on not only the principles of the shariya but on specific judgments and legal discourses. it limits the number of sharyia schools at a can be used in reaching laws, and it restricts the process to islamist. it carbs out autonomy for egypt's military. the brotherhood agreed to this because they need the military to supervisor a referendum in two weeks but that's a very undemocratic thing that the military will not be suspect to civilian oversight and maintain

it's own court system. >> eliot: there are essentially two balances acts that were from this constitutional assembly. one where shariya seems to have won out over with what our sense of civil liberties should be, and second, the parliamentary or democratic government in the military, and it maintained some of the power under mubarak ands is that morsi needed to maintain his position at the moment. is that balances balancing act something that we in the united states can live with? >> we have no alternative. there was an election in egypt. no one should be shocked that the muslim brotherhood is trying to impose shariya law. whatever is in this constitution, and my friend here is absolutely right in his assessment, but let's remember,

this constitution has to be interpreted by a legislature that is going to be dominated by even more extremist islamists. i would not be giving us too much comfort level here with what is essentially an islamist-dominated constitutional framework when you get finished with the parliament interpreting this constitution over the next few years, you're really going to have a lot to worry about. >> eric, let me turn back to that issue that the ambassador is talking about. what religious freedom will there be for non-islamic believers, for christians jews, will there be latitude for them to pursue their faith and under what constraints? >> well, the constitution actually says that christians, jews, and muslims will be governed in personal issues like marriage, divorce and death by their respective it was. but the constitution says that the building of churches and synagogues and mosques will be governed by law.

which remember historically the legal system apart from the constitution has been used to prevent christians from building and repairing churches. not only that, the constitution only gives rights to those who follow heavenly religions which are judaism christianity, and sunni islam and muslim brothers told me this has been designed to affect the rights of the shiites who they view as infidels. >> eliot: we could sit here in the united states and credit seek their constitution, we've seen the protests in tarir square, is there a sense that their revolution has been hijacked or taken over by forces that do not respect the more secular tradition and they want to have more voice in the government? >> i think that's a fair assessment eliot. to the extent that there are christian cops, 9 million of them in egypt the secretary could you laists who have--the

secularists who have taken to tarir square have seen this power grab by mr. morsi to give himself unlimited powers, and then to ram through this constitutional draft to avoid any further judicial review, and they've lost all power and basically abandoned the playing field because they've also boycotted the various assemblies that they were participating in that were drafting this in the first place. you essentially have a situation, eliot, where the forces of more moderate egyptian nationalism have very little leverage over the situation and worse, the egyptian military has basically entered into this unholy alliance with the brotherhood. >> eliot: theyto say that the indication issituation is dynamic is to under estimate it. it has the power to control

declaration of war, is that the sign that the egyptian state will continue to adhere to the peace treaty with israel because the rest of the world knows that the military does not want a fight with israel right now. they'll maintain the status quo. >> that's the bargain. no question about it, the brotherhood is focusing on domestic power consolidation but we should make no mistake the brotherhood will pursue that agenda. the brotherhood has been working for 84 years to achieve domestic power, and also had a very well established, very anti-western foreign policy doctrine that the muslim brothers have told me they have not abandoned. we should look at that deal as a short-term thing and not be comfortable with the fact that the brotherhood is effectively using this process to gain the upper hand. >> eliot: eric traeger, thank you for your time. ambassador ginsberg, stick

around to contemplate why the status quo may be the safest bet in the conflict. that's ahead in "viewpoint." young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us.

>>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >>it really is incredible. >> eliot: in a region that grows increasingly unpredictable by the day is peace still a

prospect when both sides of the israeli-palestinian conflict are missing from the negotiating table. with me now once again to answer that question is ambassador mark ginsburg, former u.s. ambassador to morocco and former deputy senior adviser on the middle east policy, thanks for sticking with us. is this going to be the death nail to any possibility of negotiations in the near term? >> i sometimes wonder, eliot, as someone who is deeply concerned with the fate of a two-state solution. constructing this area between jerusalem and the e 1 corridor. after that vote in the general assembly couple with benjamin netanyahu's race for election,

this is a reaction to the palestinian reaction at the general assembly than it had to do with hamas and the conflict there or anything that the united states may or may not be doing. that's what i'm most concerned about. >> eliot: there are domestic foundations to every foreign policy but this seems to be a step that uniquely puts the finger in the eye of the international community and makes it difficult to come back to the negotiating table. i'm mystified if you have hamas and abbas, he wants to make hamas the enemy and abbas the negotiating party, he does not seem to be turning to abbas as someone to play ball. and then the necessary next step to a two-state solution. >> this is what troubles me. net withnetanyahu, if he has a machiavellian idea, whether

abbas is there or not, by beginning to construct on the very territory that most palestinians who are secularists believe should be part of a palestinian state. i don't understand why netanyahu thinks that he can force allies like great britain and france who just sided with him on gaza and the united states, and put him in a terrible predicament in the challenge with iran. the domestic equation with this netanyahu coalition is what drives everyone batty. it seems that he's far more interested in worrying about how many seats his coalition is going to win rather than the fate of israel when it comes to its international posture. i say that, it's very hard for me to say that, but that's how i feel. >> eliot: you would think that he would want to keep the international coalition sympathetic to him and show restraint after that vote saying we won't do a b c we'll hold

our nose. we know this is more visual than substantive but we won't jeopardize the fate of the peace talks. what do you think is the relationship between the president and netanyahu. >> the president realizes israel's fate is important to the united states. that's why he sided with israel when it came to israel and the missiles being lobbed towards israel. i'm sure he'll remain confident in his commitment to israel, when it comes to having red line in the sign with respect to iran's nuclear program. but settlements that were not part of the e 1 corridor, and look what happened. now to commit, not to construct housing in this area to all